Justice Ginsburg was recently speaking at an official conference and gave this radical endorsement of affirmative action:

"Now the perception is, yes, women are here to stay," Ginsburg told the conference. "And when I'm sometimes asked when will there be enough and I say when there are nine, people are shocked."

Got that? Affirmative action will never end until there are no men on the Supreme Court. It will never end until there are no white men in power. What could be more fundamentally antagonistic to the precept of equality before the law and the very essence of justice and our legal system than affirmative action? But affirmative action is only the vehicle through which this maximalist agenda is furthered.

Western Marxism has its roots in Engels' treatise The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State; themes from which were taken up by Antonio Gramsci and weaponised by the KGB who devoted most their resources in this one strategy. Such was its success it is now threatening Russia herself. Just as Ludendorff's planting of Lenin in Russia reverberated back to Germany and from thence to the universities and government agencies of the West.

What Jacobinism or Marxism is really about is annihilating the current social and economic structure. It's a formula for anarchy, where the lower elements of society overthrow the current order, engage in bloodletting and very soon settle into a new social structure; a revolution. The Marxists turned revolution into a science and developed diabolical ways of inciting conflict of all kinds. Through these means they took over half the planet; actually more.

Initially focused on economic class warfare, the Bolsheviks then turned to Antonio Gramsci's strategy of cultural conflict. Gramsci had extrapolated upon Engels' vision of destroying the family unit and creating "matrilineal clans" - a concept taken up by second wave feminists in the sixties and now the key platform of the "LGBT" / feminist block. They have cut out their own turf in academia in the "Women and Gender Studies" Departments; their radical ideology spills over into almost every other discipline. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is just a common, garden variety Marxist; they're an everyday phenomena.

Barry Goldwater said that we should study the tactics of our enemies and use them against them. Of course this is paraphrasing Sun Tzu. Isn't it about time the right got "radical?" Goldwater was considered a "radical" in his time. And while I disagree with a lot of what he believed in, I think he recognised many of the problems we are facing. Problems that have only been exacerbated since then. The left lies and cheats and uses all kinds of underhanded tactics and frontgroups; that's why we're so overwhelmed by it. It's Goebbels, Goebbels, Goebbels every time you look at the media. And look at the precarious state of the world. I mean, things looked rosey in 1939 by comparison to today. There wasn't nuclear annihilation hanging over everyone like the Sword of Damocles; barbarians at the gates and in the cities; spilling out of the Trojan horses; cutting people's heads off. Failed states teetering on the abyss; crazy, apocalyptic nihilists blowing everyone up. Something's gotta give. [/rant]

I feel you have deeply misunderstood her point, which was that a nine-female SCOTUS lineup should be as unremarkable a situation as has been the nine-male SCOTUS lineups that have existed for the vast majority of the court’s history. This is what she was referring to in her next remark:

“Now the perception is, yes, women are here to stay,” Ginsburg told the conference. “And when I’m sometimes asked when will there be enough and I say when there are nine, people are shocked.”

Ginsburg said that no one has “ever raised a question” when nine men were serving on the bench.

Of the court’s 112 justices, only four have been female. In 226 years of existence, the court has comprised of nine men in all but 34. During that time, very few considered the all-male composition of the court to be remarkable. Ginsberg’s point is that, in like fashion, an all-female composition shouldn’t strike anyone as remarkable either.

So far as I can tell, nothing in her remarks bears on the issue of affirmative action. And while one could argue that political considerations have rendered affirmative action a de facto influence on the SCOTUS-nomination process, it is certainly not de jure–and Ginsberg was in no way arguing that it should be made so.

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:
You claim to object to anti-white rhetoric but race was not mentioned in the quote. Your use of race brings forth an issue which didn’t exist until you brought it up.
[/quote]

Nonsense. Ginsburg didn’t mention race in that particular quote but she is front and centre of a movement that openly identifies whites and Christians as their ideological enemy. That’s what I was talking about. It’s not “race baiting” to call the left out on their targeting of white people.

[quote]EyeDentist wrote:
I feel you have deeply misunderstood her point, which was that a nine-female SCOTUS lineup should be as unremarkable a situation as has been the nine-male SCOTUS lineups that have existed for the vast majority of the court’s history. This is what she was referring to in her next remark:

“Now the perception is, yes, women are here to stay,” Ginsburg told the conference. “And when I’m sometimes asked when will there be enough and I say when there are nine, people are shocked.”

Ginsburg said that no one has “ever raised a question” when nine men were serving on the bench.

Of the court’s 112 justices, only four have been female. In 226 years of existence, the court has comprised of nine men in all but 34. During that time, very few considered the all-male composition of the court to be remarkable. Ginsberg’s point is that, in like fashion, an all-female composition shouldn’t strike anyone as remarkable either.

[/quote]

That’s an elaborate defence you’ve constructed there but it doesn’t bear out the facts. If she’d meant what you said she’d have said what you said. She didn’t. She clearly said it will never be enough until there are no men on the Supreme Court. She even acknowledged the “shock” that people experience upon hearing her radical, maximalist position.

So far as I can tell, nothing in her remarks bears on the issue of affirmative action.

Her comment was about affirmative action. Quotas for the number of minorities in a particular job constitutes affirmative action. That’s what working to ensure no men are sitting on the Supreme Court constitutes: affirmative action.

[quote]

And while one could argue that political considerations have rendered affirmative action a de facto influence on the SCOTUS-nomination process, it is certainly not de jure–and Ginsberg was in no way arguing that it should be made so.[/quote]

She made her position perfectly clear but you are trying to rewrite it for her for some reason. She said her feminist agitation will never end until there are no men on the Supreme Court. It’s blatant, undisguised misandry and if someone had said the same thing about any other minority being purged from the judiciary there would be an outcry. But attacking “old white, Christian men” - the patriarchy; is allowed and encouraged. The Ginsburgs of this world are cowardly, spiteful worms. They know white, Christian men aren’t a problem, aren’t privileged(quite the contrary) and won’t bite back. She doesn’t have the guts to speak out against the real perpetrators of systematic, institutionalised misogyny and violence against women.

Ginsburg is a longtime radical who was so extreme and the Clintons were warned about her:

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. ___ (2014), was a case before the United States Supreme Court questioning whether a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by enshrining a ban on race- and sex-based discrimination on public university admissions in its state constitution. The case was argued on October 15, 2013, on appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which had ruled in 2012 that the Michigan ban, approved...

She’s a known, hard-left extremist and I don’t know why you’re acting as her apologist.